Aside from the fact that this is off topic, why not just vote for the politician based on the politician him/herself?
Lobbyists can't vote. Corporations can't vote. You can.
Besides, if that movetoamend organization got their way, wouldn't they be forbidden from doing exactly what they are trying to do now? Even if they provide special protections for themselves or for labor unions, then you can bet your ass that lobbyists will reorganize themselves in the same way, making the entire effort wasted. I also like that they want to forbid anonymous donations. Say for example you lived in a conservative state and you donated money to support gay marriage, but you didn't want anybody else to know. Is that cowardly? Maybe. But you should be free to stand up for your principles in whatever way you choose.
All too often I hear from people who vote without even knowing anything about what exactly it is that they are voting for. They don't know who their congressman is, they don't know who their governor is, they don't know who their senators are. Yet they voted for them anyways. Before they even got the ballot, they didn't even know their name, they just voted for the letter next to it. I've also heard "I'm voting for X because my friends are" and chances are you've heard the same thing.
The problem isn't the money. The problem is the voters.
If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?
Unless people actually *are* reading it. If so, then how is this a waste?
And we're not going to run out of trees any faster than we'll run out of potatoes. Trees used for paper are grown in farms, and are selectively bred for that purpose (the resulting product is of higher quality and cheaper than from wild trees.) Paper production isn't the reason for decreasing numbers of trees, and recycling paper is a huge waste of time and resources.
The only reason there are fewer trees in the world (and not in the US btw, the number of trees we have in the US has been steadily growing for decades now) is because jungle territory is being cut down to make way for real-estate.
That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.
Being in school doesn't mean having no real-world experience.
Maybe that's whats wrong instead of what I stated earlier. Too many people pick up an IT skill set, and assume it will last them a lifetime? If so, that's a huge problem. If you're still in a Novell mindset, nobody wants you. You're always going to have to pick up new stuff. Everybody I know who is successful in IT is always picking up new certifications. This is opposed to say, the people at the help desk.
No, that's not what I'm aiming for, rather that is a part of it.
I understand programming, hell I've even written a fair bit of code (mostly high level scripting, but code nonetheless.) However what I understand, and I've found most programmers don't, is business. Being able to write the entire linux kernel from scratch is one impressive thing, but actually being able to monetize that is a whole other thing.
Maybe you're an exception - I really don't know you to be able to comment on that. What I do know though, is that the people who can monetize are hard to find.
In addition to what I said in my other post, I'd like to hear how you acquire any of a CCIE, CISSP, VCDX, or SCSA in a few days. These are what employers want, not "I wrote an emulator once."
Have that attitude all you want, but truly understanding everything involved takes a LOT longer than a few days.
A few months ago I was having an argument with somebody on slashdot about why it's important to understand the whole OSI model, whereas he was essentially saying to stick to layer 3 and ignore everything else. In particular, he was saying to ignore layer 2, which is a big no-no, but apparently it was the prevailing slashdot opinion. I even went on to describe many things that can go wrong at layer 2, which if you don't know layer 2, you'll be screwed when you have to explain to your boss why you can't troubleshoot what might otherwise be a simple problem. Or worse, when your network has been penetrated at layer 2 and sensitive information is being leaked, yet you aren't aware of it because you haven't taken any steps to secure anything at layer 2. You aren't going to learn these things by just spending a few days reading documentation.
I would say the only one that is ignorable for the typical IT admin is probably layer 6, but even then you should at least understand what it is doing (encrypting, compressing, etc.)
You can spend a few days learning to set something up, but when you're operating in a large scale environment and something goes wrong, if you don't understand it top to bottom, you're going to find yourself up shit creak without a paddle when nobody at the office can get their work done and you lose a whole day, or even longer, of productivity.
Do you even know what they said went wrong? Basically the government doesn't want Canadian pharmacies selling in the US in the name of "consumer protection". I sure hope it's worth it, because that protection makes us pay out the ass for drugs since there's no competition.
You can thank government regulation for why we pay higher prices on drugs. Yeah, "big pharma" can lobby for it, bit ultimately it is people like you and I who vote for the politicians that tell the police to enforce it. When libertarians like myself rail against regulation, this is exactly what we're talking about.
Is it possible that buying abroad can result in getting tainted drugs with heavy metals or other contaminants? Absolutely. However I can take it upon myself to determine who I will buy from that I know will avoid these problems while saving money in the process.
Something you regularly hear on slashdot is that recruiters are saying that they can't find the IT talent they need, but they are just lying so they can get H-1B visa's because there is more IT talent in the US than demand.
This is wrong on so many levels. The term "IT talent" alone doesn't really mean much. A database admin isn't necessarily a network admin. A network admin isn't necessarily a web admin. A web admin isn't necessarily a programmer. A programmer doesn't necessarily know all there is to know about operating and maintaining large scale SAN's. Yes, there is some overlap between these, but not much. One thing about business is that you can say enterprise structures revolve heavily around active directory, yet most people you talk to on slashdot don't have the slightest clue on how to actually run an active directory infrastructure because it's "icky microsoft proprietary crap." Most nerds don't know, for example, how to manage a VMware ESXi 5.1 cluster with a Cisco Nexus 1000v virtual distributed switch (something very big these days, btw) or even any idea what a mezzanine card is.
These are the things businesses want, not "hey, look at me, I just built a neato kernel module."
Is there plenty of IT talent? Yeah. Is there IT talent that employers actually demand? Not so much. That's where H-1B visa's come in. Employers would rather find domestic talent than talent abroad because there is far less red tape to deal with and far less risk involved. However domestic talent is very limited. Majoring in IT, I am should probably be more concerned about H-1B visa's than anybody. Yet I am not. Unlike most in IT, I am aiming for what businesses are looking for (which also happens to be something I like) rather than just figuring that if I simply know how to build my own PC, magically somebody will want to hire me.
I've seen what recruiters have to go through to find talent. I've actually sat down with recruiters and they've told me how much of a pain in the ass it is to find what they're looking for (and they have somebody breathing down THEIR neck if they don't.) Yes you can have people out there talking up a storm about how much they can do, but most of them aren't worth a shit, so there's also the matter of separating the wheat from the chaff.
They still try to find local talent and will prefer it, but if they can expand their search abroad then there is so much more to choose from.
One thing I find highly ironic is that many on slashdot will act as though deporting illegal immigrants (or just calling them illegal to begin with) and denying them the ability to work is some sort of crime against humanity. This is ignoring the fact that illegal immigrants are far far FAR more likely to depend on the dole system and become a liability rather than an asset. Yet when it comes to H-1B workers, who are practically guaranteed to be an asset, they're mysteriously anti-immigrant.
Well there was that time when somebody literally ripped off a guy's finger while stealing his ipad.
If they grab the face of your watch though, they can easily snap the band off with relatively little force. Sure they'll break the band in the process, but that is usually easy to fix. So long as the face isn't broken it isn't a problem.
Yes, because that's the only place high paying professional jobs exist; in the corporate headquarters of publicly traded companies, and nowhere else.
They tend to reside where the headquarters are located. A company I worked for had CCIE's and datacenter architects who regularly traveled around the world to work on projects, but their "home of record" where they pay their income taxes is near that corporate hedquarters. If not in the same state then at least in the same country.
In my state, there is no geothermal capability, or hydro. However, we have a very large nuclear power plant that produces energy a lot cheaper and more efficient than wind and solar.
Exactly. There are leagues of politicians and activists who are going out of their way to prevent nuclear power from being affordable so that it doesn't happen, which is exactly what they want. This is much more of the government being short sighted.
I think the editor just has an axe to grind with capitalism. Granted its not perfect, but neither is democracy. However both have historically worked better than the alternatives.
In any case, that's no reason to throw out you're supposed objectivity. This is exactly the kind of shit that kdawson used to pull, and everybody hated him for it until he finally left Slashdot.
That reminds me of this episode of king of the hill where he said that the US government was putting too much pressure on the Russians because they didn't realize that the Russians were incompetent. I happened to read shortly afterwards about this:
I think what might be missing from linux is a solid organization to come in and say "here's what's up" when it comes to what packages we do and don't use. Yes, it is less "open" but when it comes to stability and reliability, it would win in the end.
I've always said that windows understands business but has a poor understanding of infrastructure, and that linux has a good understanding of infrastructure but a poor understanding of business (The later somewhat changing with SAMBA 4, but I don't have my hopes up. Contrary to popular view, SAMBA isn't just about CIFS, but about group management, policies, and a number of other things that are very poorly done on linux yet done so well on windows. That, and linux is very lacking of a solid groupware suite - the best groupware that runs on linux right now is google apps.)
What it would take is a desktop version of linux that can understand both business and infrastructure to topple the competition. Games would be a good start (after all, games translate to business because they are done as a for profit venture) and that said if valve ever released their own linux distro and established some better norms as far as what software stack we should generally stick to, that would probably take it a long ways.
And no, not ubuntu. Yes, they pick a common stack, but they do a really bad job of it. For example they push everybody over to unity even knowing that a lot of people hate it, so even among ubuntu users you have people who modify their software stack.
I asked my cable company if the rate I pay for internet would rise any if I dropped cable TV. The answer was no, I'd still pay $32 for internet (50mbit/10mbit) just like I currently do.
I'm wanting to do it, but other people in the house still watch news channels. (I've moved them all over to sickbeard/couchpotato combined with xbmc, which they like much better. I wouldn't have done it if my cable provider wasn't CCI flagging every single channel.) So for now I am on the minimum tier possible for news channels in digital, which after the cable cards runs me $35 a month. Total bill is about $68 a month after FCC fees. Not bad considering that through them, I have access to all TV content I want, including full blu-ray releases before they even hit store shelves.
Well there's a lot of money in cableco only leased cable boxes. Seriously, those damn things are expensive to lease, and the cable lobby is pretty strong too.
Just because you're boycotting doesn't mean everybody is.
Personally I like the business model that League of Legends has. I actually have paid for some things in it. They aren't things that are required for gameplay or even give you any kind of in-game advantage. But I actually enjoyed the game so much that I gave them my money for a few things that I got a kick out of having. I think they deserve it. I never needed to spend anything to begin with, and I don't have any plans on spending again, but that option is always available.
People who pirate games talk about how they'll buy the game after trying it and liking it, but most don't ever get around to it. The F2P model actually allows for that in a great way.
If you're one of those who boycotts it, that's fine, nobody is going to frown upon that. After all, the game developers even want to accommodate people like you anyways and make you want to keep playing even if you never pay them anything. You see, by playing the game you add value to those who do pay, and you also add value by (maybe not you personally) watching their sponsored tournaments. So you're a customer every bit as much as anybody else. In fact, when it comes to banning players who are ruining the game for other players (e.g. by being a shithead in game) they don't discriminate against those who don't pay. I know because I've voted in the tribunal (so I know what kind of crap other people pull) and have seen people who have put a lot of money into it be banned for being a shithead.
League of Legends is a VERY successful game, and you don't have to pay anything for it if you don't want to. And for very good reason.
Now games where you have to pay to advance, THOSE are annoying. An example of a big title that does this is diablo 3. The drop rates for good items are deliberately shitty so that you have to buy most of your stuff from the real money auction house. I haven't bothered to play that game for that reason. From what I am hearing, the game sucks for reasons even beyond that, but this is one of the things that people hate about that game. By not buying it, that is my boycott. And, I encourage others to do the same. While diablo 3 is doing well because it is one of those games where people just "expected" it to be good (because of its name and the company behind it) I highly doubt people will be rushing to stores for a sequel.
The FCC has done a lot of similar things, say for example mandating that cable companies can't sell boxes that don't include a cablecard, or requiring all cable companies to permit self install of cablecards.
What would stop them from outright forbidding cell phone locking?
Canada has their own version of Hollywood to contend with, which poses a problem.
Hollywood were among those who pressed Obama to sign ACTA without senate approval, or even letting the senate see it at all (a major constitutional violation - how he got away with that is rather shocking.) Obama won a peace prize after all, if he can be traded on the open market like that, imagine what can happen in Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and that's what annoys me about this whole thing. People vote for their candidates based on the most absurd reasons.
I think the problem is all of the "get out the vote" campaigns. People voting on issues they don't understand is more damaging than not voting at all.
Aside from the fact that this is off topic, why not just vote for the politician based on the politician him/herself?
Lobbyists can't vote. Corporations can't vote. You can.
Besides, if that movetoamend organization got their way, wouldn't they be forbidden from doing exactly what they are trying to do now? Even if they provide special protections for themselves or for labor unions, then you can bet your ass that lobbyists will reorganize themselves in the same way, making the entire effort wasted. I also like that they want to forbid anonymous donations. Say for example you lived in a conservative state and you donated money to support gay marriage, but you didn't want anybody else to know. Is that cowardly? Maybe. But you should be free to stand up for your principles in whatever way you choose.
All too often I hear from people who vote without even knowing anything about what exactly it is that they are voting for. They don't know who their congressman is, they don't know who their governor is, they don't know who their senators are. Yet they voted for them anyways. Before they even got the ballot, they didn't even know their name, they just voted for the letter next to it. I've also heard "I'm voting for X because my friends are" and chances are you've heard the same thing.
The problem isn't the money. The problem is the voters.
If nobody reads the damn thing, how can it be profitable? And if it isn't profitable, why are they distributing it?
Unless people actually *are* reading it. If so, then how is this a waste?
And we're not going to run out of trees any faster than we'll run out of potatoes. Trees used for paper are grown in farms, and are selectively bred for that purpose (the resulting product is of higher quality and cheaper than from wild trees.) Paper production isn't the reason for decreasing numbers of trees, and recycling paper is a huge waste of time and resources.
The only reason there are fewer trees in the world (and not in the US btw, the number of trees we have in the US has been steadily growing for decades now) is because jungle territory is being cut down to make way for real-estate.
That said, I'm not sure why the politicians would make an issue of trying to reduce the number of phone books. Just treat it like any other junk mail: send it right to the trash. And you only have to do it once a year.
Being in school doesn't mean having no real-world experience.
Maybe that's whats wrong instead of what I stated earlier. Too many people pick up an IT skill set, and assume it will last them a lifetime? If so, that's a huge problem. If you're still in a Novell mindset, nobody wants you. You're always going to have to pick up new stuff. Everybody I know who is successful in IT is always picking up new certifications. This is opposed to say, the people at the help desk.
No, that's not what I'm aiming for, rather that is a part of it.
I understand programming, hell I've even written a fair bit of code (mostly high level scripting, but code nonetheless.) However what I understand, and I've found most programmers don't, is business. Being able to write the entire linux kernel from scratch is one impressive thing, but actually being able to monetize that is a whole other thing.
Maybe you're an exception - I really don't know you to be able to comment on that. What I do know though, is that the people who can monetize are hard to find.
In addition to what I said in my other post, I'd like to hear how you acquire any of a CCIE, CISSP, VCDX, or SCSA in a few days. These are what employers want, not "I wrote an emulator once."
Have that attitude all you want, but truly understanding everything involved takes a LOT longer than a few days.
A few months ago I was having an argument with somebody on slashdot about why it's important to understand the whole OSI model, whereas he was essentially saying to stick to layer 3 and ignore everything else. In particular, he was saying to ignore layer 2, which is a big no-no, but apparently it was the prevailing slashdot opinion. I even went on to describe many things that can go wrong at layer 2, which if you don't know layer 2, you'll be screwed when you have to explain to your boss why you can't troubleshoot what might otherwise be a simple problem. Or worse, when your network has been penetrated at layer 2 and sensitive information is being leaked, yet you aren't aware of it because you haven't taken any steps to secure anything at layer 2. You aren't going to learn these things by just spending a few days reading documentation.
I would say the only one that is ignorable for the typical IT admin is probably layer 6, but even then you should at least understand what it is doing (encrypting, compressing, etc.)
You can spend a few days learning to set something up, but when you're operating in a large scale environment and something goes wrong, if you don't understand it top to bottom, you're going to find yourself up shit creak without a paddle when nobody at the office can get their work done and you lose a whole day, or even longer, of productivity.
Do you even know what they said went wrong? Basically the government doesn't want Canadian pharmacies selling in the US in the name of "consumer protection". I sure hope it's worth it, because that protection makes us pay out the ass for drugs since there's no competition.
You can thank government regulation for why we pay higher prices on drugs. Yeah, "big pharma" can lobby for it, bit ultimately it is people like you and I who vote for the politicians that tell the police to enforce it. When libertarians like myself rail against regulation, this is exactly what we're talking about.
Is it possible that buying abroad can result in getting tainted drugs with heavy metals or other contaminants? Absolutely. However I can take it upon myself to determine who I will buy from that I know will avoid these problems while saving money in the process.
This isn't distorting the market.
Something you regularly hear on slashdot is that recruiters are saying that they can't find the IT talent they need, but they are just lying so they can get H-1B visa's because there is more IT talent in the US than demand.
This is wrong on so many levels. The term "IT talent" alone doesn't really mean much. A database admin isn't necessarily a network admin. A network admin isn't necessarily a web admin. A web admin isn't necessarily a programmer. A programmer doesn't necessarily know all there is to know about operating and maintaining large scale SAN's. Yes, there is some overlap between these, but not much. One thing about business is that you can say enterprise structures revolve heavily around active directory, yet most people you talk to on slashdot don't have the slightest clue on how to actually run an active directory infrastructure because it's "icky microsoft proprietary crap." Most nerds don't know, for example, how to manage a VMware ESXi 5.1 cluster with a Cisco Nexus 1000v virtual distributed switch (something very big these days, btw) or even any idea what a mezzanine card is.
These are the things businesses want, not "hey, look at me, I just built a neato kernel module."
Is there plenty of IT talent? Yeah. Is there IT talent that employers actually demand? Not so much. That's where H-1B visa's come in. Employers would rather find domestic talent than talent abroad because there is far less red tape to deal with and far less risk involved. However domestic talent is very limited. Majoring in IT, I am should probably be more concerned about H-1B visa's than anybody. Yet I am not. Unlike most in IT, I am aiming for what businesses are looking for (which also happens to be something I like) rather than just figuring that if I simply know how to build my own PC, magically somebody will want to hire me.
I've seen what recruiters have to go through to find talent. I've actually sat down with recruiters and they've told me how much of a pain in the ass it is to find what they're looking for (and they have somebody breathing down THEIR neck if they don't.) Yes you can have people out there talking up a storm about how much they can do, but most of them aren't worth a shit, so there's also the matter of separating the wheat from the chaff.
They still try to find local talent and will prefer it, but if they can expand their search abroad then there is so much more to choose from.
One thing I find highly ironic is that many on slashdot will act as though deporting illegal immigrants (or just calling them illegal to begin with) and denying them the ability to work is some sort of crime against humanity. This is ignoring the fact that illegal immigrants are far far FAR more likely to depend on the dole system and become a liability rather than an asset. Yet when it comes to H-1B workers, who are practically guaranteed to be an asset, they're mysteriously anti-immigrant.
Well there was that time when somebody literally ripped off a guy's finger while stealing his ipad.
If they grab the face of your watch though, they can easily snap the band off with relatively little force. Sure they'll break the band in the process, but that is usually easy to fix. So long as the face isn't broken it isn't a problem.
Yes, because that's the only place high paying professional jobs exist; in the corporate headquarters of publicly traded companies, and nowhere else.
They tend to reside where the headquarters are located. A company I worked for had CCIE's and datacenter architects who regularly traveled around the world to work on projects, but their "home of record" where they pay their income taxes is near that corporate hedquarters. If not in the same state then at least in the same country.
Replace the you're with your of course (damn tablet autocorrect).
In my state, there is no geothermal capability, or hydro. However, we have a very large nuclear power plant that produces energy a lot cheaper and more efficient than wind and solar.
Exactly. There are leagues of politicians and activists who are going out of their way to prevent nuclear power from being affordable so that it doesn't happen, which is exactly what they want. This is much more of the government being short sighted.
I think the editor just has an axe to grind with capitalism. Granted its not perfect, but neither is democracy. However both have historically worked better than the alternatives.
In any case, that's no reason to throw out you're supposed objectivity. This is exactly the kind of shit that kdawson used to pull, and everybody hated him for it until he finally left Slashdot.
That reminds me of this episode of king of the hill where he said that the US government was putting too much pressure on the Russians because they didn't realize that the Russians were incompetent. I happened to read shortly afterwards about this:
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-25.html
Nobody heard about it til way later.
Could have something to do with the fact that unity is a POS that even most veteran linux users hate.
That's a bit like asking for SATA support on linux 2.2.
This just in: Older operating systems don't always support newer hardware. More news at 11.
I think what might be missing from linux is a solid organization to come in and say "here's what's up" when it comes to what packages we do and don't use. Yes, it is less "open" but when it comes to stability and reliability, it would win in the end.
I've always said that windows understands business but has a poor understanding of infrastructure, and that linux has a good understanding of infrastructure but a poor understanding of business (The later somewhat changing with SAMBA 4, but I don't have my hopes up. Contrary to popular view, SAMBA isn't just about CIFS, but about group management, policies, and a number of other things that are very poorly done on linux yet done so well on windows. That, and linux is very lacking of a solid groupware suite - the best groupware that runs on linux right now is google apps.)
What it would take is a desktop version of linux that can understand both business and infrastructure to topple the competition. Games would be a good start (after all, games translate to business because they are done as a for profit venture) and that said if valve ever released their own linux distro and established some better norms as far as what software stack we should generally stick to, that would probably take it a long ways.
And no, not ubuntu. Yes, they pick a common stack, but they do a really bad job of it. For example they push everybody over to unity even knowing that a lot of people hate it, so even among ubuntu users you have people who modify their software stack.
It's what those in management refer to as a loss leader. And you know what? Given time, it works.
I asked my cable company if the rate I pay for internet would rise any if I dropped cable TV. The answer was no, I'd still pay $32 for internet (50mbit/10mbit) just like I currently do.
I'm wanting to do it, but other people in the house still watch news channels. (I've moved them all over to sickbeard/couchpotato combined with xbmc, which they like much better. I wouldn't have done it if my cable provider wasn't CCI flagging every single channel.) So for now I am on the minimum tier possible for news channels in digital, which after the cable cards runs me $35 a month. Total bill is about $68 a month after FCC fees. Not bad considering that through them, I have access to all TV content I want, including full blu-ray releases before they even hit store shelves.
Well yeah, that's why I said they should divvy that up. Divvy as in divide, as in subnet it out.
Chances are I know more about networking than you do.
Well there's a lot of money in cableco only leased cable boxes. Seriously, those damn things are expensive to lease, and the cable lobby is pretty strong too.
Just because you're boycotting doesn't mean everybody is.
Personally I like the business model that League of Legends has. I actually have paid for some things in it. They aren't things that are required for gameplay or even give you any kind of in-game advantage. But I actually enjoyed the game so much that I gave them my money for a few things that I got a kick out of having. I think they deserve it. I never needed to spend anything to begin with, and I don't have any plans on spending again, but that option is always available.
People who pirate games talk about how they'll buy the game after trying it and liking it, but most don't ever get around to it. The F2P model actually allows for that in a great way.
If you're one of those who boycotts it, that's fine, nobody is going to frown upon that. After all, the game developers even want to accommodate people like you anyways and make you want to keep playing even if you never pay them anything. You see, by playing the game you add value to those who do pay, and you also add value by (maybe not you personally) watching their sponsored tournaments. So you're a customer every bit as much as anybody else. In fact, when it comes to banning players who are ruining the game for other players (e.g. by being a shithead in game) they don't discriminate against those who don't pay. I know because I've voted in the tribunal (so I know what kind of crap other people pull) and have seen people who have put a lot of money into it be banned for being a shithead.
League of Legends is a VERY successful game, and you don't have to pay anything for it if you don't want to. And for very good reason.
Now games where you have to pay to advance, THOSE are annoying. An example of a big title that does this is diablo 3. The drop rates for good items are deliberately shitty so that you have to buy most of your stuff from the real money auction house. I haven't bothered to play that game for that reason. From what I am hearing, the game sucks for reasons even beyond that, but this is one of the things that people hate about that game. By not buying it, that is my boycott. And, I encourage others to do the same. While diablo 3 is doing well because it is one of those games where people just "expected" it to be good (because of its name and the company behind it) I highly doubt people will be rushing to stores for a sequel.
The FCC has done a lot of similar things, say for example mandating that cable companies can't sell boxes that don't include a cablecard, or requiring all cable companies to permit self install of cablecards.
What would stop them from outright forbidding cell phone locking?
Canada has their own version of Hollywood to contend with, which poses a problem.
Hollywood were among those who pressed Obama to sign ACTA without senate approval, or even letting the senate see it at all (a major constitutional violation - how he got away with that is rather shocking.) Obama won a peace prize after all, if he can be traded on the open market like that, imagine what can happen in Canada.